Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
My email to Greenpeace
Eeyore:
Hmm, so there main gripe isn't about the inappropriate use of vehicles, then, only Land Rovers.
Seems intelligent to me. :roll:
I'd be interested in your response to this, your first letter got a reply, so who knows.
cheers
8)
Eeyore
littlepow:
Good job no one else like toyota, nissan, isuzu, mitsubishi, jeep... etc, make such vehicles.
That would just be horrific! :roll:
Oh well whats common sense got to do with political attacks on the minority drivers. :evil:
the loon:
credit where credits due they did reply which is more than we expected but as has been said it only seems to be land rover who are a target not any other car makers :-s
On there bit about "bio-disel" point them towards this as would be intrested in the treehuggers responce.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1534821.html
Ok so maybe not the chosen animal listed i the article but I'm sure that most any animal would work.
Can see that you'll have 3 types of diesel
Normal
bio type one
bio type 2 (vegitarian diesel)
it makes sense if you read the article
BRO:
From the 'Association of British Drivers' website http://www.abd.org.uk/
Although some people refer to carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles as "pollution", carbon dioxide is in fact a natural constituent of the atmosphere. It is breathed out by all living animals and is essential to the existence of all green plants, they breathe it in! In fact plants grow better in an atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide.
Of course we would not want to upset the balance of gases in the atmosphere, but the way some self-styled "environmentalists" talk you would think cars were major contributors to atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is not in fact the case; worldwide, all road transport contributes just 0.6% of atmospheric carbon dioxide!
The concern regarding carbon dioxide emissions is "global warming" yet many scientists are unconvinced that the phenomenon exists; and even if it does, they dispute that the overall effects would be negative.
Some other interesting stuff there too :lol:
jnoshea:
Ok. I found some time to reply to Chris at greenpeace, here's my response. You might not agree with all of it, but I do, and I have deliberately not gone down the road of defending my human rights to drive a Land Rover but instead to focus on their immediate campaign:
Dear Chris,
Thanks for replying to my email, I do appreciate it. I understand who your campaign against Land Rover is really aimed at, but even if Land Rover drivers like myself are not the intended victims, nevertheless we are feeling the brunt of this campaign through the growing climate of hatred against all forms of 4x4 vehicle. The situation as I have tried to show is that a person's lifestyle as a whole is what really matters in addressing climate change. People vandalising 4x4s or protesting outside schools know nothing of the life of the person inside that car or their reasons for having a Land Rover. Aside from the fact that they may have to cross rough terrain for work or for their hobby (and we are all entitled to one) they might have a very large family or simply really enjoy driving it. These are not bad reasons. I would prefer to see your campaign focussed on encouraging people to be responsible with their carbon emissions so that if they use a lot of fuel in their car, they make sacrifices in other areas such as the electricity they use in the home or buy local produce or invest in forestry. Moreover, you say that Land Rover are marketing their cars as lifestyle accessories, but Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar and Mercedes have done this for years and continue to do so, and many of these cars are much less fuel efficient than the current Land Rovers (especially the diesel models). What is it that makes a Porsche Cayenne any more offensive to protestors than a Porsche Carrera? They do roughly the same miles to the gallon. Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the graphic on you website entitled 'Wanted:Land Rover'. This cartoon shows a Land Rover from the back with black smoke pouring out of the exhaust. This sums up the misinformation of the current campaign for me: this looks like my 10 year old Land Rover discovery pulling away from a junction. The black smoke that occasionally comes out of my exhaust as you well know has nothing to do with climate change, it is soot, CO2 is invisible. But the public don't know this. They see this picture and it is my Land Rover that becomes the target, not the brand new petrol Discovery 3 that I think your artists have tried to draw in this case (and I'm pretty sure you will never see a plume of black smoke emitted from one of those). I would strongly urge you to rethink this campaign, to steer it more towards education rather than aggression, and to widen it beyond Land Rovers and 4x4s to all cars. Don't let people feel smug and comfortable because they drive a brand new Mini Cooper as these are barely more fuel efficient than a diesel Discovery 3. Cars will always be a part of life, and when they are running on non-fossil fuels such as pure biodiesel or fuel-cells the type of car will no longer be an issue. How about changing your slogan from 'Land Rovers are wrecking the climate' to 'Our cars are wrecking the climate'? I think this would bring about a more profound and meanginful change of attitude amongst the population, don't you?
Best regards
James
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version